User talk:Sandstein - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Godsy (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 11 April 2015 (→Articles for deletion/Brogrammer: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:54, 11 April 2015 by Godsy (talk | contribs) (→Articles for deletion/Brogrammer: fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Mail

You've got mail Rajendrarajun (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Please tell me here what you'd like to tell me. Sandstein 16:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, Subsequent to your decision, I had searched for published sources on the topic and I was able to locate several which establish notability (By Misplaced Pages definition the person should have been awarded, there should be secondary sources for reference and the person's work should be in existence: All 3 of these conditions are met : The 1st condition viz. Award of Rao Bahadur - this was one of the National awards conferred by Govt. of India in the 1940s, The 2nd Condition viz. Secondary sources are mentioned below and the 3rd Condition viz Existence of The Madras Aerodrome, Dowleshwaram Barrage road/rail bridge, Annamalai University Faculty of Engg. all continue to be in existence and provide good service to the citizens of India therefore I would request you to please help to restore Articles for deletion//en.wikipedia.org/Puttana_Venkatramana_Raju.

You would recall the above-mentioned article, Please go through the links (1), (2) and (3) below. Attachments for you to go through and see for yourself the veracity of notability. Given below are a few published proofs which are even available on the internet for your reference which should help in establishing notability. I look forward to your advice and help in restoring the article. Thanks.

(1)http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bLEZAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=raju+p.+venkataramana+

Published in "Eminent Indians Who was Who 1900-1980" Publisher : Durga Das Pvt. Ltd., 1985.New Delhi, Language: English, Dewey Number: 920/.054. The paragraph on page 262 reads as follows "RAJU P.Venkataramana (Rao Bahadur):Engineer (b Jan.,14 1895): Head of Dept. of Engineering, Annamalai University. Had 4 sons and 4 daughters, Did BECE, MIE,(Ind.), Educated at Christian College, Madras; Engineering College, Chepauk. Joined ISE, served in Madras PWD (1919-50); was head of Dept. of Engineeringand Chairman, Board of Examiners, Annamalai University; member of Syndicate and Academic Council, Annamalai University; A.R.P. Special Engineer (1941-45); gave lectures in Holland under Madras University and Maharaja of Travancore-Curzon Endowment scheme. Member, International Association for Hydraulic Research, Indian Roads Congress, Association of Principals and Technical Institutions. Represented India at International Roads Congress at Hague (1938); Madras govt. delegate to Indian Roads Congress, Bombay (1939), Madras (1945), Jaipur (1946) and Trivandrum (1947), Toured Europe and studied modern methods of road making, soil mechanics laboratories, construction of high dams and irrigation works (1938), Conducted special examination of weak bridges along trunk roads in Madras state (1940-41); carried out aerodrome works on behalf of War Dept.(1942-45)"

(2)http://irc.org.in/ENU/knowledge/archive/Annual%20Sessions/List%20of%20Annual%20Sessions.pdf

Represented India at International Roads Congress at Hague (1938)

(3)https://sites.google.com/site/dgconclavesi/trivandrum-conclave-history

Masonic Lodge Rajendrarajun (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, concerning Puttana Venkatramana Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Puttana Venkatramana Raju: The result of the discussion was that "this would need a full rewrite even should the subject be notable after all". I recommend that you first create a draft version that takes the concerns voiced in the discussion into account, at User:Rajendrarajun/Puttana Venkatramana Raju. Sandstein 08:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, Thank you for your quick revert, Yes - I will commence work on a fresh draft which takes into account concerns voiced earlier. Rajendrarajun (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Project MUSE

You should have received an email from me about two weeks ago regarding your application for Project MUSE access. Could you please complete the form linked from that email, or if you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), email me? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Now done, thanks. Sandstein 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Space Cadet

This user came to my attention when he made an edit that seemed rather odd (and disruptive) regarding a German scientist's PhD and with a comment that also seemed rather odd. I then learned that you have in fact indefinitely banned him from "the topic of Germany and Germans, broadly construed" and that he has been engaging in this sort of disruptive editing for more than a decade. His recent edit seems to be in violation of this ban, so I thought I should bring this to your attention. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, weird, that. Blocked for a week. Sandstein 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, unblocked again. I didn't notice that this was in fact a self-revert. Sandstein 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But seriously now, can I correct such minor stuff like "phd → PhD" and other simple, non-controversial stuff (and non-disruptive, might I add), or rather not? Space Cadet (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, a topic ban means that you may not edit any pages related to the topic. Sandstein 10:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An AfD you closed as delete

Hi Sandstein, I just ran across this: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Atlatsa Resources Corporation, which you closed as delete. The title however has been redirected to a recreated article: Atlatsa Resources. I'd like to have you, Kudpung (who commented in the AfD about a slew of these articles), and possibly Davidwr (who nominated the article but seems semi-retired now), assess that article and also the other standing articles that ReganChai created. If you would. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, any of these articles in the following list, or any articles by any of the accounts listed here: User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course Page or MeganKing, who seems to be a sock or an unlisted member of the group. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as G4, repost. If any of the other articles have problems, you can nominate them for deletion as may be appropriate. Sandstein 18:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I got an email saying I was mentioned here. People following these articles may wish to read User:Davidwr/Tsinghua, User_talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua, and especially User_talk:Davidwr/Tsinghua#Course page for some background. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

General response to both Sandstein and Davidwr (and Kudpung and anybody else if interested; by the way Tryptofish is on a Wikibreak): I myself don't personally have time to look at the individual articles (or editors). However it seems that a cursory glance by anybody can tell whether any given one of them has at least a couple of independent significant-coverage write-ups in WP:RSs as citations, and if not then nominate them at AfD. I don't see any problem with nominating them, because if in fact they do turn out to be notable, the editors !voting at AfD will figure that out. As to whether these articles were submitted in (somewhat) good faith as homework assignments, or whether there was some COI going on -- I am troubled by the fact that, for one thing, ReganChai seems like a sockpuppet of MeganKing, both in name and in the re-posting of at least one deleted AfDed article. In any case, it's all troublesome and it wouldn't even hurt if the whole group of articles were AfDed -- at least it would get more eyes on them. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I take the editors' claims that this was a class project at face value. In any collaboration of this type, you are going to have some instances where collaborators "go to bat" for each other. This is not sock-puppetry. At worst, it is intentional meat-puppetry (and by intentional, I mean intentionally "going to bat" for each other for the purpose of putting their own collective agenda ahead of Misplaced Pages's), but it is much more likely to be "unintentional" - that is, it is much more likely to be collaboration combined with an incomplete understanding of Misplaced Pages's goals, resulting in the appearance of intentionally-disruptive meat-puppetry. If memory serves (and it has been awhile, so the memory is hazy), I got the sense that at least some of these editors, perhaps even most, didn't quite "get" the purpose of Misplaced Pages. If they didn't "get" the purpose of Misplaced Pages, it's hard to claim that they were deliberately trying to sabotage that purpose. Having said all of that, the articles should be reviewed and should stand or fall on their own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

An impertinent question...

...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. BMK (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, no problem. I stopped editing at AE for the moment because it felt increasingly exhausting and time-consuming, perhaps also as a result of my impression of increasing bureaucratic requirements and increasing expectations by some of discussion and consensus instead of individual admin actions. As a consequence I decided to focus my Misplaced Pages editing on topic areas that, to me, feel more fulfilling. I may in the future return to contributing at AE, but at the moment I don't plan on it. Regards, Sandstein 09:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I too believe that you should come back to it. IMO you are/were the best admin at AE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein:I can certainly understand what you're saying. Still, I hope you'll be able to go back to AE at some point, where I (for one) very much appreciated your contribution. BMK (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your feedback. Regards, Sandstein 10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein. Your absence from AE is noted. WP:AE works better when more admins are participating. In my opinion there is no need to wait for consensus before taking action in blatant cases. Sometimes people may wait for consensus just because they don't feel strongly enough to act on their own. That's not a bar to someone else going ahead. The appeal process ought to be sufficient to limit anything that goes too far. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that's how it ought to work in theory, but my experiences over several years indicate that AE, like all of our disciplinary processes, in practice does often not work effectively (or not without inordinate effort) when applied to ill-behaved but popular users, and I profoundly dislike systems with rules that can't be enforced equally. It's also, in the most recent incarnation of discretionary sanctions, bureaucratic overkill when applied to many of the rest of AE's clientele, i.e., run-of-the-mill POV-pusher trolls with no friends. So right now I don't feel it's worth investing my free time in, but the experience of others may differ - and besides, no process ought to depend on a few individuals. Sandstein 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An AE question

Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view, only to the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of the appeal. That is, if you are banned from X, you may say in your statement of appeal that "I am an expert about X and therefore should be allowed to edit about it", but not "unban me now, and by the way, X is a vile abomination that needs to be eradicated from Misplaced Pages!". See generally WP:BANEX. Sandstein 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IP vandals

86.168.193.197 who you recently blocked is the same as 86.159.94.13 (blocked for a month) and 86.168.194.64 (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. Helpsome (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Third one now also blocked. Perhaps somebody with a mental or similar disorder and a knowledge of how to IP-hop, there are apparently a few WP:LTA cases of this sort. Nothing to do but report and block. Sandstein 19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you

Kitten - 03		Thanks
		Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus - and . Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brogrammer

I was wondering what your rationale was behind the no consensus closure on Brogrammer. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. —Godsy_CONT) 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)